George Pell sexual abuse trials and fresh investigation

[K]

Some contempt charges dropped but...

'The DPP alleged the Herald Sun's online site breached the orders in several ways when it published an article entitled "Nation's Biggest Story; the story we can't report" on December 13, pointing readers to coverage overseas including The Washington Post.

The document also outlined how the article had "a serious tendency to prejudice the fair trial of the charges pending against Pell" in the second case.

The Age and its editor Alex Lavelle have been accused of breaching the order in the newspaper and an online article entitled "Why media can't report on a high-profile case" and also referencing overseas coverage, pointing out that "Google searches for the person's name surged yesterday".

The Age is also accused of prejudicing the second trial by referring to a another trial.'

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-20/ ... n/11131558

[K]

[K]

"The Court of Appeal has acknowledged the high interest in the case and plans to livestream the hearing on the Supreme Court's website."

Looks like it starts 9.30am.

[David]

Here's the link, for those who are curious:

https://www.streaming.scvwebcast1.com/t ... june-2019/

[David]

I don't understand a lot of this stuff, obviously, but my impression from listening to segments of the hearing is that the justices aren't buying a lot of Pell's lawyer's arguments.

Though Jeremy Gans says that Pell has a good chance of winning:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/why- ... 51ta4.html

The finding likely won't be handed down for a few weeks, by the way.

[K]

Current discussion about

timelines (the defence says the prosecution timeline leaves no margin for error);
use of the word "impossibility";
how to prove/disprove a negative;
clarification of an argument;
whether the "madman" argument was well within the competence of the jury;
in the 21st century, use of 21st-century forms of communication (one judge does not "see the point of it"; the defence says it's needed to counter the prosecution "disappearing" witnesses to the alleged event; the same judge wants to know how it is "grounded in the evidence"; the defence says the trial judge erred in viewing the animation as evidence rather than argument);
sections of the jury act.


Session ends 4:19. Resumption 9:30am tomorrow.

[stui magpie]

I don't understand a lot of this stuff, obviously, but my impression from listening to segments of the hearing is that the justices aren't buying a lot of Pell's lawyer's arguments.

Though Jeremy Gans says that Pell has a good chance of winning:

https://www.theage.com.au/national/why- ... 51ta4.html

The finding likely won't be handed down for a few weeks, by the way.

I suspect with 3 judges reviewing it, he has a very good chance of winning.

I have no opinion on whether he actually committed what he was convicted of.

[Woods]

Looking at the Pell appeal today (with the prosecution presenting) I'd say the conviction is grossly unsound and Pell will be freed.

As for the bumbling prosecution barrister - to think fools like him earn thousands per hour in fees yet can't even string a coherent sentence together. Appalling time waster.

[David]

As for the bumbling prosecution barrister - to think fools like him earn thousands per hour in fees yet can't even string a coherent sentence together. Appalling time waster.

God, listening to it now and you're not wrong. I'm sure it's an extremely hard job and requires a lot of thinking on your feet, so I'm not going to make too many judgements from the peanut gallery, but by the sounds of things (the justices seem to be prompting him at times on his own argument), I'm not sure if Pell could have found a better prosecution barrister if he'd appointed one himself.

[Woods]

As for the bumbling prosecution barrister - to think fools like him earn thousands per hour in fees yet can't even string a coherent sentence together. Appalling time waster.

God, listening to it now and you're not wrong. I'm sure it's an extremely hard job and requires a lot of thinking on your feet, so I'm not going to make too many judgements from the peanut gallery, but by the sounds of things (the justices seem to be prompting him at times on his own argument), I'm not sure if Pell could have found a better prosecution barrister if he'd appointed one himself.

Yeah, he's receiving coaching from the bench!

And he just replied to a question from one of the judges with "I'll take that on notice". Six judges eyebrows shot up simultaneously.

A circus.

[David]

Seems we're not the only ones who've noticed:

https://twitter.com/ChrisReason7/status ... 4761686016

Speaking to advocates and survivor groups in the break: they’re gravely concerned with prosecutor Christopher Boyce’s arguments and stumbling presentation. They’re speculating he’s deeply rattled after the horror blunder this morning (he named Cardinal Pell’s sex assault victim)

https://twitter.com/luciemorrismarr/sta ... 7944312832

It has to be said Christopher Boyce for the Crown isn’t having the best day; reporters have had to move to the media room for the live stream as we can’t hear him, he named the accuser and now he’s apologising to the judges; “The point I’m making and not making extremely well.”

[David]

Some interesting comments by one of the judges. This occurred to me too in the aftermath of the case being publicised:

https://www.afr.com/leadership/afr-list ... 606-p51v0x

Justice Weinberg - one of the three appeal judges - revealed in a two minute exchange his concern Pell's own "impossible" defence, may have misled the jury to answer the wrong question, despite the jury being directed that prosecutors needed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

"It's unfortunate in some ways that the case was pitched at the level of impossibility ... and that that term was used repeatedly," the judge said, with Justice Chris Maxwell adding that if someone is in New Zealand that is a fact which truly makes committing a crime in Melbourne "impossible".

"The risk of running it that way is that the jury, faced with competing arguments, answers the wrong question. They answer the question, 'Was it possible?," Justice Weinberg said.

"There are lots of things that one might have said were inherently improbable or unlikely, but they were elevated at various points to the level of individual impossibility rather than global impossibility," the judge said.

"One understands rhetorically why that may have been done. But it's quite misleading in lots of ways, it seems to me," Justice Weinberg said.

"The Crown's response was 'this was entirely possible, this was entirely possible, this was entirely possible' going to particular pieces of evidence which allow that conclusion to be reached," he said.

While the comments implicitly criticise Pell's own side, they also support the appeal argument that the jury verdict may be unsafe or unsound.

[K]

^ Yeah, that was the discussion of the use of the word "impossibility" yesterday afternoon.

....

Media say the trial prosecutor was Mark Gibson.

....

They're on break now. Hearing resumes 2.15pm.

[David]

They're playing elevator music over the footage of the empty bench during the break, for some reason.

[K]

It looks like the break didn't help Boyce. He is stuttering, apologizing, etc.

e.g. Boyce: "I don't mean to be rude."

Now it sounds like the judges are explaining legal matters to him.

"Again, I don't think that helps, Mr. Boyce," the judge now says.

Boyce keeps repeating "as I've endeavoured to show".

Boyce: "It. It. It... I'm loathe to... You need to take the second step." (This is painful.)

Boyce: "You are not in the same position as the jury. You're just not." (You're "just not" is not an argument, Mr. Boyce.)

The judges are trying to get Boyce to discuss appeal court vs jury.

There's now a huge silence. Then, Boyce: "I must say it is difficult... It's not good enough to say to you what I said before..." Boyce calls what he said before "platitudes" that are "not helpful".